95% of enjoying a sport is understanding the game well enough to see the nine things that must happen in order for your team to prevail in the next 15 seconds.
That said, Soccer is effing boring.
Watch Hockey instead. It's the same game, but it's played 50 times faster, and contact is encouraged.
American Football is 22 guys getting in a fight 100 times a game. There's absolutely nothing boring about that. Rugby and Australian-rules football are almost as violent, but aren't as well punctuated by the play structure.
>>I actually began to pay real attention >as opposed to counterfeit or virtual attention?
As opposed to the sort of backhanded attention I'm paying you for being an intransigent dick.
>Watching any race just to see the wrecks is like drinking alcohol for the express purpose of vomiting.
You're mistaking watching for driving. Without the wrecks in the first 199.9 laps, crossing the line at the end is the only thing to see, and that takes a millisecond these days.
The higher accident rate in NASCAR as compared with other kinds of racing is due to two things. 1. They race in large packs because of the rules limiting the differences between the vehicles and because of the simple course design. 2. The vehicles are domed, which means they generate lift over their roofs. Ever seen what happens when one loses the suction from its airdams? They fly farther than the Wright Brothers' first powered flight, by a ton. And then start rolling and throwing major components everywhere.
Techies don't enjoy the races in the same way that the generic NASCAR fan does. Techies pay attention to the aerodynamics and resource management. Cooters want to see a crash or make five bucks from betting their brother Bubba-Chunkwhite.
Again. Soccer is boring. There's no way around that. The game is played virtually the same by preadolescents and professionals. Opportunities for excitement come hours apart, and consist mostly of watching grown men hug each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
There's a difference between "popular" and "popular with a marginal segment of the population".
Marketers know how to use that difference to their benefit, but it leaves most of us wondering why our media are being used for insane purposes when we're not watching them.
Last time I did that, I was buying a sub to Brill's Content, the magazine of media watchdogs.
It went bust, and the balance of my sub was changed to be fulfilled by Mother Jones which, while I'm slightly more Leftist than Rightist, hasn't published a word I can trace to a logical basis.
The irony is stunning.
And I can't get rid of them. I know there weren't that many issues left in my BC sub, but the MJ keeps appearing in my mailbox...
So all of you Salon members with positive balances as of the closing of the site beware, you may just end up with password access to goatse.cx...
They actually got paid $1.2 million. If they could find a cheaper way to operate (get rid of the manager, produce the record themselves, not spend $200K on studio time, pay their lawyer a flat fee instead of a percentage, etc.) they could keep the $1.2 million. Their lawyer should also have negotiated that the royalty was on the retail gross, rather than any sort of net. The royalty should reflect the popularity of the music directly, and not any machinations of the production process.
And if I wasn't hungry, I'd show you how the newspaper managed to double-count for some of the money, and lose some elsewhere, but it'd take a spreadsheet.
Bottom line, rock stars are dumb for thinking they're only making $40K on a gold record.
Well, some software changes. Much rarely does at a visible rate. But people just never do learn to avoid common superstition unless they're taught reality.
Hmm. Maybe he's right. But then again, at $8-45M a quarter, it can take a long time to lose all your nut.
I was about to say. Evaporating water can only take energy from the system, reducing the temperature and pressure of the explosion. Maybe the pressure is reduced less by the vapor pressure of the steam, but I don't see it improving the compression.
Slowing the reaction to make the compression follow a more efficient curve makes sense.
The buyer of the good may benefit (just ask any tech house that can now get top talent for $20/hour, or less by going to India) but the economy (shitsville all around us) clearly does not.
Software is not a consumable. It's eternal. It only goes bad when it's corrupted or superseded.
Maybe it's just a poor choice of words. The first thing that appears on my computer (and I've noticed it on Suns going back a couple of decades) is a graphic from the graphics card.
But having a text mode is a good thing. Bootstrapping is a validation of the system's computeworthiness. If it crashes, you want to be able to see where it was and what it was doing. You can't do that if the contextual data are hidden behind the Logo screen Windows puts up.
Haven't we been beating this dead horse long enough?
Admonitions against misinterpreting Moore's law are about 3 minutes less old than Moore's law itself, and will probably be the part of Moore's law that outlives the law by 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Stopping spam on your ISP is a noble goal. (*Applause*).
But how about fixing the news server so it talks to the shell server at better than a few kbps?
(Hi, Barry!)
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?
NASCAR is for rednecks and geeks who want to be rednecks.
95% of enjoying a sport is understanding the game well enough to see the nine things that must happen in order for your team to prevail in the next 15 seconds.
That said, Soccer is effing boring.
Watch Hockey instead. It's the same game, but it's played 50 times faster, and contact is encouraged.
American Football is 22 guys getting in a fight 100 times a game. There's absolutely nothing boring about that. Rugby and Australian-rules football are almost as violent, but aren't as well punctuated by the play structure.
>>I actually began to pay real attention
>as opposed to counterfeit or virtual attention?
As opposed to the sort of backhanded attention I'm paying you for being an intransigent dick.
>Watching any race just to see the wrecks is like drinking alcohol for the express purpose of vomiting.
You're mistaking watching for driving. Without the wrecks in the first 199.9 laps, crossing the line at the end is the only thing to see, and that takes a millisecond these days.
The higher accident rate in NASCAR as compared with other kinds of racing is due to two things. 1. They race in large packs because of the rules limiting the differences between the vehicles and because of the simple course design. 2. The vehicles are domed, which means they generate lift over their roofs. Ever seen what happens when one loses the suction from its airdams? They fly farther than the Wright Brothers' first powered flight, by a ton. And then start rolling and throwing major components everywhere.
Techies don't enjoy the races in the same way that the generic NASCAR fan does. Techies pay attention to the aerodynamics and resource management. Cooters want to see a crash or make five bucks from betting their brother Bubba-Chunkwhite.
Again. Soccer is boring. There's no way around that. The game is played virtually the same by preadolescents and professionals. Opportunities for excitement come hours apart, and consist mostly of watching grown men hug each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Screw NeckCAR.
Get into F1.
There's a difference between "popular" and "popular with a marginal segment of the population".
Marketers know how to use that difference to their benefit, but it leaves most of us wondering why our media are being used for insane purposes when we're not watching them.
And you're showing exactly the sort of fallacious dittoheadedness that makes 95% of America suspicious of your type.
A rating of 4.9 is a violent success on Cable, and represents 5% of homes with televisions.
So you're saying that a 5% market penetration is "joe average".
The Ranting Right prefers to repeat what it hears on Fox (including their marketing phrase "fair and balanced") instead of thinking for themselves.
That's all Fox News has accomplished.
Last time I did that, I was buying a sub to Brill's Content, the magazine of media watchdogs.
It went bust, and the balance of my sub was changed to be fulfilled by Mother Jones which, while I'm slightly more Leftist than Rightist, hasn't published a word I can trace to a logical basis.
The irony is stunning.
And I can't get rid of them. I know there weren't that many issues left in my BC sub, but the MJ keeps appearing in my mailbox...
So all of you Salon members with positive balances as of the closing of the site beware, you may just end up with password access to goatse.cx...
Then the lawyer is a superfluous expense. Or not. If the label doesn't want to deal fairly, fuck the label and go elsewhere. Or get a new lawyer.
3. Say they'll go down the street to the competing label.
What a country!
They actually got paid $1.2 million. If they could find a cheaper way to operate (get rid of the manager, produce the record themselves, not spend $200K on studio time, pay their lawyer a flat fee instead of a percentage, etc.) they could keep the $1.2 million. Their lawyer should also have negotiated that the royalty was on the retail gross, rather than any sort of net. The royalty should reflect the popularity of the music directly, and not any machinations of the production process.
And if I wasn't hungry, I'd show you how the newspaper managed to double-count for some of the money, and lose some elsewhere, but it'd take a spreadsheet.
Bottom line, rock stars are dumb for thinking they're only making $40K on a gold record.
Any more superlatives left? I've run out. Man. All that PR after so many saturday-night beers. I think I just bought a palm-enabled camel.
Unilever, when you only need one lever.
Because they're receiving it from the future.
Well, some software changes. Much rarely does at a visible rate. But people just never do learn to avoid common superstition unless they're taught reality.
Hmm. Maybe he's right. But then again, at $8-45M a quarter, it can take a long time to lose all your nut.
When does he get out of prison?
Sue Microsoft.
When you bought a license to SQL Server, you presumably paid Microsoft a royalty for it.
But now you have to pay these other guys.
Microsoft owes you that money back.
I was about to say. Evaporating water can only take energy from the system, reducing the temperature and pressure of the explosion. Maybe the pressure is reduced less by the vapor pressure of the steam, but I don't see it improving the compression.
Slowing the reaction to make the compression follow a more efficient curve makes sense.
You missed the big uh-oh:
The power of the ROM BIOS is that it's bulletproof.
Because EFI has its own filing system that lives on a reserved part of the hard disk
And the ROM BIOS will help tell you that the hard disk is crapped out.
How long before a disk crash takes out FFI's ability to tell that a disk crashed?
I'm betting rev 0.16.
If the RIAA could have their way, they'd meter your ears.
Google for "internet bubble".
No it doesn't.
The buyer of the good may benefit (just ask any tech house that can now get top talent for $20/hour, or less by going to India) but the economy (shitsville all around us) clearly does not.
Software is not a consumable. It's eternal. It only goes bad when it's corrupted or superseded.
You're netting on it.
Maybe it's just a poor choice of words. The first thing that appears on my computer (and I've noticed it on Suns going back a couple of decades) is a graphic from the graphics card.
But having a text mode is a good thing. Bootstrapping is a validation of the system's computeworthiness. If it crashes, you want to be able to see where it was and what it was doing. You can't do that if the contextual data are hidden behind the Logo screen Windows puts up.
(See here for how to disable that.)
Where's a HERO tag when you need one?
You will note that the Earth is a Class-M planet.
--Blair
"Fascinating."
How does giving away "free" software protect free speech? It may be a role model for free speech, but I don't see how it protects free speech.
What it really does is it undercuts the value of commercial software, which destroys jobs in the software industry.
Anyone think that can't happen any more?
Haven't we been beating this dead horse long enough?
Admonitions against misinterpreting Moore's law are about 3 minutes less old than Moore's law itself, and will probably be the part of Moore's law that outlives the law by 20 years.